By Nathan Rudyk

Every once in awhile someone sums up an era/societal movement and "nails it". For me, this editorial from the New York Times is one of those occasions. I'm not saying this assessment of a post-industrial, social-networked society by David Brooks is right or wrong, but I am saying it's a thought-provoking piece that resonates like the low note on a masterfully played cello. Here's an excerpt:

Today, the fast flexible and diverse networks allow the ambitious and the gifted to surf through amazing possibilities. They are able to construct richer, more varied lives. They are able to enjoy interesting information-age workplaces ...

On the other hand, people who lack social capital are more likely to fall through the cracks. It takes effort, organization and a certain set of skills to surf these new, protean social networks. People who are unable to make the effort or lack social capital are more likely to be alone ...

Over all, we’ve made life richer for the people who have the social capital to create their own worlds. We’ve also made it harder for the people who don’t ...

These trends are not going to reverse themselves. So maybe it’s time to acknowledge a core reality: People with skills can really thrive in this tenuous, networked society. People without those advantages would probably be better off if we could build new versions of the settled, stable and thick arrangements we’ve left behind.

(Nathan Rudyk is President and CEO with market2world communications inc., the public relations and product marketing agency for global innovators.)

Comment